papabear wrote:
to be honest you don't sound like a swing voter in this.

I don’t sound like a swing voter in this because the Liberals have spent the last 6 years generally **** up things that I wanted addressed in that period:
- SSM
- Climate/Energy plan
- House prices
- NBN
- Prime Ministers that cook onions before eating them

If Malcolm Turnbull had come in and shifted policies to what he actually believes in prior to last election. I would have voted Liberal. I suspect many others would have also and he would have had a comfortable majority, been able to tell the conservatives to get **** because they couldn’t actually block legislation, or threaten to leave the party and bring down the government. I think he’d still be prime minister with a great shot at going round again, and Labor would have Albanese as leader. The big question is whether that was at all possible, or whether the conservatives could actually have tossed him out before the election if he did try to hit them head on straight away.

papabear wrote:
The coalition did put it through, despite great resistance within their own party and from very conservative voters in australia.

The fact that they still have great resistance in their party is a problem for me.

papabear wrote:
Labor facing less resistance within their own party did not. Of course the public sentiment wasn't as strong but there was more then enough there NZ got there vote through before labor lost government. All australia had to do was be equal to NZ. Not asking them to be norway or someone more progressive, just NZ.

NZ are far more progressive than us.

papabear wrote:
You get credit for what you achieve not for the context people put on it to try and downgrade it.

That’s your view. It’s certainly not mine. Context is very important.

papabear wrote:
Equally, if Labor fixed up the tax system, simplified it so there was one effective rate, do you think the coalition should get credit for this because they have in the past been more reasonable with their taxes and less punitive as the coalition? That would be ridiculous.

This analogy is poor. That doesn’t represent my argument at all. The analogy is that Liberals went to an election with a policy on tax reform and lost. Over the course of Labor’s term the public pressure was so great that they were forced to pass tax reform. The version passed was also a less desirable version than that proposed by the Liberals at the election. The credit they get for that is certainly muted by the fact they were forced into it, and went for a lesser offering.

papabear wrote:
You give credit where it is due and the coalition get to dance all over the bringing in of SSM. Labor do not.

I don’t think either do. Labor should have passed it earlier. Liberals could really do nothing but pass it now.

Hahaha it's absolutely amazing how much it eats up Labor supporters inside that the LNP got same-sex marriage over the line.

Absolutely kills them.

I’m not a Labor supporter, voted LNP for many years but I won’t be anymore. They got it done kicking and screaming and in the worst possible manner at great harm to an already marginalized group, a group they are still trying to harm.

"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

papabear wrote:
to be honest you don't sound like a swing voter in this.

I don’t sound like a swing voter in this because the Liberals have spent the last 6 years generally **** up things that I wanted addressed in that period:
- SSM
- Climate/Energy plan
- House prices
- NBN
- Prime Ministers that cook onions before eating them

If Malcolm Turnbull had come in and shifted policies to what he actually believes in prior to last election. I would have voted Liberal. I suspect many others would have also and he would have had a comfortable majority, been able to tell the conservatives to get **** because they couldn’t actually block legislation, or threaten to leave the party and bring down the government. I think he’d still be prime minister with a great shot at going round again, and Labor would have Albanese as leader. The big question is whether that was at all possible, or whether the conservatives could actually have tossed him out before the election if he did try to hit them head on straight away.

papabear wrote:
The coalition did put it through, despite great resistance within their own party and from very conservative voters in australia.

The fact that they still have great resistance in their party is a problem for me.

papabear wrote:
Labor facing less resistance within their own party did not. Of course the public sentiment wasn't as strong but there was more then enough there NZ got there vote through before labor lost government. All australia had to do was be equal to NZ. Not asking them to be norway or someone more progressive, just NZ.

NZ are far more progressive than us.

papabear wrote:
You get credit for what you achieve not for the context people put on it to try and downgrade it.

That’s your view. It’s certainly not mine. Context is very important.

papabear wrote:
Equally, if Labor fixed up the tax system, simplified it so there was one effective rate, do you think the coalition should get credit for this because they have in the past been more reasonable with their taxes and less punitive as the coalition? That would be ridiculous.

This analogy is poor. That doesn’t represent my argument at all. The analogy is that Liberals went to an election with a policy on tax reform and lost. Over the course of Labor’s term the public pressure was so great that they were forced to pass tax reform. The version passed was also a less desirable version than that proposed by the Liberals at the election. The credit they get for that is certainly muted by the fact they were forced into it, and went for a lesser offering.

papabear wrote:
You give credit where it is due and the coalition get to dance all over the bringing in of SSM. Labor do not.

I don’t think either do. Labor should have passed it earlier. Liberals could really do nothing but pass it now.

Too much quoting expertise for me:-

So I will address your issues:-
- SSM

The Coalition got this done, they were not forced too MT said he would put it to the people and he did. Labor did not achieve this.
- Climate/Energy plan
I am not sure what australia needs is more expensive energy nor am I convinced that this will have a material impact on climate change. That said, I agree that environmental concerns are a massive massive issue something that has never really been a strong point for the coalition.

Expecting this out of the coalition is like expecting labor not to **** the economy up and tax us more.

- House prices

I am so glad you went here!!!!! I love it, I tried to send the conversation this way and failed through lack of interest and people getting jack of me harping on.

House prices in sydney are tanking some stuff is down 20% from 6 months to a year a go. The market sent house prices down and then the market combined with institutional intervention over lending standards and state govt intervention of forieghn investment and stamp duty have tanked the market.

Please go speak to your real estate agent or builder friends and ask them how much more the market needs to tank or how much we need labor in to tank the property market further. TBH I think the imminent threat of labor coming in is already been priced into the market.

- NBN

LOL, this is a winner, I live in a safe seat so I wont have it for a year or two by which time I will probably be on equivalent wifi where the rest of the world is moving.

If we needed anything is upgraded / more cables to overseas market to help our gamers improve their ping against overseas competition.. but really the NBN yay.

FTR I was all for the NBN when it came out, but hindsight being what it is... I would dump 50 billion in far more different directions or just not borrow it and lessen the tax burden or borrowings. I will give the NBN though I still rate it above the current destruction of the city we are doing with the tram line.

- Prime Ministers that cook onions before eating them

This is a product of our system, something neither party can change unless one party had the balls to get a direct vote on the country's leader up.

I don’t have an ideological fervour here. I’m a swing voter. I just am happy to go in for analysis beyond your in depth “they put it through”.

Oh, excellent

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

papabear wrote:
to be honest you don't sound like a swing voter in this.

I don’t sound like a swing voter in this because the Liberals have spent the last 6 years generally **** up things that I wanted addressed in that period:
- SSM
- Climate/Energy plan
- House prices
- NBN
- Prime Ministers that cook onions before eating them

If Malcolm Turnbull had come in and shifted policies to what he actually believes in prior to last election. I would have voted Liberal. I suspect many others would have also and he would have had a comfortable majority, been able to tell the conservatives to get **** because they couldn’t actually block legislation, or threaten to leave the party and bring down the government. I think he’d still be prime minister with a great shot at going round again, and Labor would have Albanese as leader. The big question is whether that was at all possible, or whether the conservatives could actually have tossed him out before the election if he did try to hit them head on straight away.

papabear wrote:
The coalition did put it through, despite great resistance within their own party and from very conservative voters in australia.

The fact that they still have great resistance in their party is a problem for me.

papabear wrote:
Labor facing less resistance within their own party did not. Of course the public sentiment wasn't as strong but there was more then enough there NZ got there vote through before labor lost government. All australia had to do was be equal to NZ. Not asking them to be norway or someone more progressive, just NZ.

NZ are far more progressive than us.

papabear wrote:
You get credit for what you achieve not for the context people put on it to try and downgrade it.

That’s your view. It’s certainly not mine. Context is very important.

papabear wrote:
Equally, if Labor fixed up the tax system, simplified it so there was one effective rate, do you think the coalition should get credit for this because they have in the past been more reasonable with their taxes and less punitive as the coalition? That would be ridiculous.

This analogy is poor. That doesn’t represent my argument at all. The analogy is that Liberals went to an election with a policy on tax reform and lost. Over the course of Labor’s term the public pressure was so great that they were forced to pass tax reform. The version passed was also a less desirable version than that proposed by the Liberals at the election. The credit they get for that is certainly muted by the fact they were forced into it, and went for a lesser offering.

papabear wrote:
You give credit where it is due and the coalition get to dance all over the bringing in of SSM. Labor do not.

I don’t think either do. Labor should have passed it earlier. Liberals could really do nothing but pass it now.

Too much quoting expertise for me:-

So I will address your issues:-
- SSM

The Coalition got this done, they were not forced too MT said he would put it to the people and he did. Labor did not achieve this.
- Climate/Energy plan
I am not sure what australia needs is more expensive energy nor am I convinced that this will have a material impact on climate change. That said, I agree that environmental concerns are a massive massive issue something that has never really been a strong point for the coalition.

Expecting this out of the coalition is like expecting labor not to **** the economy up and tax us more.

- House prices

I am so glad you went here!!!!! I love it, I tried to send the conversation this way and failed through lack of interest and people getting jack of me harping on.

House prices in sydney are tanking some stuff is down 20% from 6 months to a year a go. The market sent house prices down and then the market combined with institutional intervention over lending standards and state govt intervention of forieghn investment and stamp duty have tanked the market.

Please go speak to your real estate agent or builder friends and ask them how much more the market needs to tank or how much we need labor in to tank the property market further. TBH I think the imminent threat of labor coming in is already been priced into the market.

- NBN

LOL, this is a winner, I live in a safe seat so I wont have it for a year or two by which time I will probably be on equivalent wifi where the rest of the world is moving.

If we needed anything is upgraded / more cables to overseas market to help our gamers improve their ping against overseas competition.. but really the NBN yay.

FTR I was all for the NBN when it came out, but hindsight being what it is... I would dump 50 billion in far more different directions or just not borrow it and lessen the tax burden or borrowings. I will give the NBN though I still rate it above the current destruction of the city we are doing with the tram line.

- Prime Ministers that cook onions before eating them

This is a product of our system, something neither party can change unless one party had the balls to get a direct vote on the country's leader up.

An election hasn't even been called and the housing market currently tanking is already Labor's fault?

TBF though I don't understand how their recently announced housing initiative will work.

However I honestly don't care about all the other policy so long as some action is taken on climate.

An election hasn't even been called and the housing market currently tanking is already Labor's fault?

I'm not sure that 'fault' is at all the right word - the bubble needed to deflate to avoid a crash. But yes, I think the imminent arrival of Labor to the business side of the House has had a serious impact on housing sentiment. Remember the market responds to a sense of something about to happen much, much more than it does to actual events.

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

An election hasn't even been called and the housing market currently tanking is already Labor's fault?

I'm not sure that 'fault' is at all the right word - the bubble needed to deflate to avoid a crash. But yes, I think the imminent arrival of Labor to the business side of the House has had a serious impact on housing sentiment. Remember the market responds to a sense of something about to happen much, much more than it does to actual events.

I think the other factors Papa mentioned are legitimate but as we've seen countless times if Labor win they can blame everything that goes wrong, in the first half of their term, on the LIBs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

An election hasn't even been called and the housing market currently tanking is already Labor's fault?

I'm not sure that 'fault' is at all the right word - the bubble needed to deflate to avoid a crash. But yes, I think the imminent arrival of Labor to the business side of the House has had a serious impact on housing sentiment. Remember the market responds to a sense of something about to happen much, much more than it does to actual events.

I think the other factors Papa mentioned are legitimate but as we've seen countless times if Labor win they can blame everything that goes wrong, in the first half of their term, on the LIBs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

I don't much care who blames who for what, to be honest. My point was that housing market movements are often swayed by sentiment, and the incoming Labor government will have property investors seriously spooked.
The other factor of course being that with the likelihood of things getting worse with Labor coming in, parasitic exploiters of the decent working people out there, such as myself, are keeping our property investment powder dry until the market hits bottom.

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

An election hasn't even been called and the housing market currently tanking is already Labor's fault?

I'm not sure that 'fault' is at all the right word - the bubble needed to deflate to avoid a crash. But yes, I think the imminent arrival of Labor to the business side of the House has had a serious impact on housing sentiment. Remember the market responds to a sense of something about to happen much, much more than it does to actual events.

I think the other factors Papa mentioned are legitimate but as we've seen countless times if Labor win they can blame everything that goes wrong, in the first half of their term, on the LIBs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

I don't much care who blames who for what, to be honest. My point was that housing market movements are often swayed by sentiment, and the incoming Labor government will have property investors seriously spooked.
The other factor of course being that with the likelihood of things getting worse with Labor coming in, parasitic exploiters of the decent working people out there, such as myself, are keeping our property investment powder dry until the market hits bottom.

But there is no proof that if the market continues to fall with a change of government that the fall is directly related to the Labor policy or whether the market is continuing to correct itself from the Liberals time in power. Then it does actually become a blame game and peoples opinion is generally based on which team you barrack for and/or who 'sells the blame game' best doesn't it?

The Nickman wrote:All I know is we're about to hit surplus again, there's a genuine feel on the ground that everything's starting to go well again, and if the government changes that'll all flip again.

And then Labor will blame the Libs. ATAOATALPT

Where is this sentiment that everything is starting to go well again? All I see is hatred for the current govt, and regular calls of "election now' but then again I do live in a Labor city.

An election hasn't even been called and the housing market currently tanking is already Labor's fault?

I'm not sure that 'fault' is at all the right word - the bubble needed to deflate to avoid a crash. But yes, I think the imminent arrival of Labor to the business side of the House has had a serious impact on housing sentiment. Remember the market responds to a sense of something about to happen much, much more than it does to actual events.

I think the other factors Papa mentioned are legitimate but as we've seen countless times if Labor win they can blame everything that goes wrong, in the first half of their term, on the LIBs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

I don't much care who blames who for what, to be honest. My point was that housing market movements are often swayed by sentiment, and the incoming Labor government will have property investors seriously spooked.
The other factor of course being that with the likelihood of things getting worse with Labor coming in, parasitic exploiters of the decent working people out there, such as myself, are keeping our property investment powder dry until the market hits bottom.

But there is no proof that if the market continues to fall with a change of government that the fall is directly related to the Labor policy or whether the market is continuing to correct itself from the Liberals time in power. Then it does actually become a blame game and peoples opinion is generally based on which team you barrack for and/or who 'sells the blame game' best doesn't it?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Actually, 'market sentiment' tends to move well ahead of policy, no matter whether up or down. I guess you are right - people will interpret the data as they see fit.

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

I don’t have an ideological fervour here. I’m a swing voter. I just am happy to go in for analysis beyond your in depth “they put it through”.

Oh, excellent

Hahahahaha I'm not touching THAT dubby trap with a ten foot pole!

It's the lack of care about laying said trap that upsets me the most. Like you cant just Frisbee a trap down any ol place and expect people like trip over it like some sort of Big Dogg.
Gangers needs to respect the process.

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Newspoll appears to not have taken redistributions into account for their predictions. The "breakdown current prediction by" section of their site shows the ACT with two HoR seats - we now have three. I recall the consensus that the redistributions worked more in Labor's favor than the Coalition's... this might end up being a tad more lopsided than the polls predict.

Bean incoming!

Zero guesses as to which way he'll vote.

Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.

Dr Zaius wrote:I loathe both parties at the moment. Neither are fit to govern in my opinion. Clean them out and start from scratch.

Herd them all into a Colleseum and only 1 walks out alive. I've got money on Bob 'crazy eyes' Katter.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

I would genuinely be supportive of that in place of the 2019 election.

Not as an ongoing thing, but just to strip the entire parliament out for a sitting. We can live under a strongman dictator for 3 years to get some hard decisions made, then return to our cuddly, dysfunctional democracy from there.

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Utterly flabbergasted by the lack of commentary on Schifty's twitter over the reports of a EDIT floating around out there.

I imagine his system shut down in the sheer excitement of it all.

My main source of snide left wing commentary has let me down badly.

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.